Injuries

[metalgear]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1867181656236326970

my guess its a budget/cost issue. too bad there are no stats around medical/fitness support for players by club

 

[Muttley]

my guess its a budget/cost issue. too bad there are no stats around medical/fitness support for players by club

I quite often look at players injury history online. That's just injury, number of days and games missed.

Eventually though, it would be good to use some player welfare diagnostics and some sensible governance around it. In other words, a player can only play in the red zone for so many mins/hours before they have an enforced break. It is no longer the manager and players choice to put their body through more of the same, and have to take the rest. I'm not sure whether there are medical diagnostics supporting this concept, but I suspect there are. Us fans wouldn't see the diagnostics, but would get used to players missing games as they've been identified as needing a rest.

I can't imagine how much football recently Porro has played in the red zone. Most of it would be my guess.

 

[metalgear]

I quite often look at players injury history online. That's just injury, number of days and games missed.

Eventually though, it would be good to use some player welfare diagnostics and some sensible governance around it. In other words, a player can only play in the red zone for so many mins/hours before they have an enforced break. It is no longer the manager and players choice to put their body through more of the same, and have to take the rest. I'm not sure whether there are medical diagnostics supporting this concept, but I suspect there are. Us fans wouldn't see the diagnostics, but would get used to players missing games as they've been identified as needing a rest.

I can't imagine how much football recently Porro has played in the red zone. Most of it would be my guess.

sounds like something for the players' union - is there one, i mean a real one?

limiting player's max on pitch time is a very interesting idea - will give more time to other players and also reduces a club's dependence on a few players. there were a few players calling this out at the last international break, romero one of them

 

[Muttley]

sounds like something for the players' union - is there one, i mean a real one?

limiting player's max on pitch time is a very interesting idea - will give more time to other players and also reduces a club's dependence on a few players. there were a few players calling this out at the last international break, romero one of them

Yeah, something will have to give eventually. The primary root cause in my mind is this battle of who owns the money between FIFA and UEFA.

FIFA know that UEFA and the European contingent are currently owning the big purse of money and they are now trying to find ways of bringing that back into their control with things like club world cups. That is a complete dereliction of duty from what their primary role should be. It is the governing bodies power plays that are at the root of the player welfare issue unfortunately.

Some football stakeholders don't seem to want governments to get involved, but I do think we are now at that stage. You couldn't imagine a worker on a HS2 site not having a complete Occupational Health policy around their "fit for work" status and all the health surveillance that goes with their activities. Even then, that is open to corruption and can sometimes be a tick-box exercise.

I think it is time that our HSE implemented something locally in the UK for professional footballers operating in our country. Make every club implement it and constantly audit it. The government should mandate that money from the broadcasting pot is ring-fenced for it.

 

[thfcsteff]

I quite often look at players injury history online. That's just injury, number of days and games missed.

Eventually though, it would be good to use some player welfare diagnostics and some sensible governance around it. In other words, a player can only play in the red zone for so many mins/hours before they have an enforced break. It is no longer the manager and players choice to put their body through more of the same, and have to take the rest. I'm not sure whether there are medical diagnostics supporting this concept, but I suspect there are. Us fans wouldn't see the diagnostics, but would get used to players missing games as they've been identified as needing a rest.

I can't imagine how much football recently Porro has played in the red zone. Most of it would be my guess.

We have been talking about -and investigating our own ideas- this on the pod for some time now.

 

[Bullet]

I'll get hate for this. But if all players were swapped at half time, we wouldn't need all the breaks for subs, so the game would flow better and the game would be played at 100% for the whole 90 minutes rather than in a rest state. And you'd get to see more players and more quality variance and really test out the squad. And players would never be in the red zone. They could easily play every 3 days, or even more often.
I know most people hate this idea, but it would be a solution and would mean fewer injuries and more footy on the box.

 

[mudshark]

There's already more than enough games played for me. Definitely an outside-the-box idea though.

 

[Gutter Boy]

sounds like something for the players' union - is there one, i mean a real one?

limiting player's max on pitch time is a very interesting idea - will give more time to other players and also reduces a club's dependence on a few players. there were a few players calling this out at the last international break, romero one of them

I would put a limit something like each player can play a maximum of 50 club + 5 international games a season (extended to 10 in world cup or euros years).

Just basically kill off pre-season tours and international friendlies.

 

[Muttley]

I would put a limit something like each player can play a maximum of 50 club + 5 international games a season (extended to 10 in world cup or euros years).

Just basically kill off pre-season tours and international friendlies.

I don't think it is that simple. Just compare what is happening to the body in the last 10 mins of the game compared to the middle 10 mins in the first half. Way different. Ditto, comparing an 18 year old to a 25 year old to a 33 year old.

There has to be some diagnostics that informs some decisions. It can't be one size fits all.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't think it is that simple. Just compare what is happening to the body in the last 10 mins of the game compared to the middle 10 mins in the first half. Way different. Ditto, comparing an 18 year old to a 25 year old to a 33 year old.

There has to be some diagnostics that informs some decisions. It can't be one size fits all.

Its intended as a ceiling, not a guide. Something to sustain careers and limit arthritis/dementia etc. in later life.

 

[Surfless]

Yeah, something will have to give eventually. The primary root cause in my mind is this battle of who owns the money between FIFA and UEFA.

FIFA know that UEFA and the European contingent are currently owning the big purse of money and they are now trying to find ways of bringing that back into their control with things like club world cups. That is a complete dereliction of duty from what their primary role should be. It is the governing bodies power plays that are at the root of the player welfare issue unfortunately.

Some football stakeholders don't seem to want governments to get involved, but I do think we are now at that stage. You couldn't imagine a worker on a HS2 site not having a complete Occupational Health policy around their "fit for work" status and all the health surveillance that goes with their activities. Even then, that is open to corruption and can sometimes be a tick-box exercise.

I think it is time that our HSE implemented something locally in the UK for professional footballers operating in our country. Make every club implement it and constantly audit it. The government should mandate that money from the broadcasting pot is ring-fenced for it.

I work with the HSE daily and I can tell you now that were we to wait for that then a) Archie Gray's son would be retired from football and b) it would be a confused and directionless mess. The HSE is barely fit for purpose for protecting people working in factories from asbestos, let alone something as nuanced as a sports fatigue scale.

 

[Surfless]

my guess its a budget/cost issue. too bad there are no stats around medical/fitness support for players by club

I think the review is something of a red herring - if you look at the stats its a simple case of too many games for too few players, the idea we're not on point with all modern medical recovery and repair techniques is highly unlikely.


They either need to unshackle the clubs in terms of squad size (which will create massive issues with the rich clubs buying everyone in sight) or reduce the amount of football they are playing (more chance of the titanic pulling up in New York in the morning).

 

[Surfless]

I don't think it is that simple. Just compare what is happening to the body in the last 10 mins of the game compared to the middle 10 mins in the first half. Way different. Ditto, comparing an 18 year old to a 25 year old to a 33 year old.

There has to be some diagnostics that informs some decisions. It can't be one size fits all.

I'm not picking on you, you're just making the most interesting posts! But I have to say it probably should be a simple limit, as otherwise the issues will be massive.

Some players develop earlier, some have issues with growing pains and spurts, others have weaknesses in some part of them, such as hamstrings, and then some just look after themselves better than others. You can't have a scale to manage all of those traits.

If you simply limit the amount of game time the players have you will prolong careers - look at Salah - he had a couple of seasons where he wasn't playing a lot due to not getting selected, and now he's roaring into his mid thirties. Similarly on the flip side, Michael Owen was a spent force relative to his early career due to being overplayed and playing injured by the time he was 28.

There will eventually be a Bosman style law suit from some obscure 2nd tier footballer who wins a ruling in the high court that FIFA/UEFA's number of games injured him permanently and then it will all change.

Consider though, if a club can't play a player more than 40 times a season, there's going to be all sorts of clamouring as managers will have to become strategic as to what 40 games they can play, leading to claims of "fixing" by playing weaker teams against one relegation threatened side and not another.

What do they do when they have an injury crisis and they have already played X player 40 times - can they not play him or do they need special league dispensation?


Its a messy area to get into, but its going to have to happen.

 

[Bullet]

I'm not picking on you, you're just making the most interesting posts! But I have to say it probably should be a simple limit, as otherwise the issues will be massive.

Some players develop earlier, some have issues with growing pains and spurts, others have weaknesses in some part of them, such as hamstrings, and then some just look after themselves better than others. You can't have a scale to manage all of those traits.

If you simply limit the amount of game time the players have you will prolong careers - look at Salah - he had a couple of seasons where he wasn't playing a lot due to not getting selected, and now he's roaring into his mid thirties. Similarly on the flip side, Michael Owen was a spent force relative to his early career due to being overplayed and playing injured by the time he was 28.

There will eventually be a Bosman style law suit from some obscure 2nd tier footballer who wins a ruling in the high court that FIFA/UEFA's number of games injured him permanently and then it will all change.

Consider though, if a club can't play a player more than 40 times a season, there's going to be all sorts of clamouring as managers will have to become strategic as to what 40 games they can play, leading to claims of "fixing" by playing weaker teams against one relegation threatened side and not another.

What do they do when they have an injury crisis and they have already played X player 40 times - can they not play him or do they need special league dispensation?


Its a messy area to get into, but its going to have to happen.

It's unworkable because the key games MIGHT come at the end of the season in the cups, or you might get knocked out, and especially because international managers cannot and will not liaise with clubs on that.
So the only solution is to limit them all to 45 mins or 60 mins per match, so they don't get into the red zone where all the damage is done. The manager can pick which portion of a game they can play, but not the full 98 minutes. There, I said it!

 

[Muttley]

I work with the HSE daily and I can tell you now that were we to wait for that then a) Archie Gray's son would be retired from football and b) it would be a confused and directionless mess. The HSE is barely fit for purpose for protecting people working in factories from asbestos, let alone something as nuanced as a sports fatigue scale.

I totally get it. Hence why I used the words "tick box". HSE moved from government funded to self funded in the last 5 years and it has massivlye hurt their ability to perform. I would focus more on our government being very clear that footballer needs to have an occupational health strategy and policy. They shouldn't be exempt because of the money involved compared to the construction worker on the HS2 site. Both need protecting.

 

[Muttley]

I'm not picking on you, you're just making the most interesting posts! But I have to say it probably should be a simple limit, as otherwise the issues will be massive.

Some players develop earlier, some have issues with growing pains and spurts, others have weaknesses in some part of them, such as hamstrings, and then some just look after themselves better than others. You can't have a scale to manage all of those traits.

If you simply limit the amount of game time the players have you will prolong careers - look at Salah - he had a couple of seasons where he wasn't playing a lot due to not getting selected, and now he's roaring into his mid thirties. Similarly on the flip side, Michael Owen was a spent force relative to his early career due to being overplayed and playing injured by the time he was 28.

There will eventually be a Bosman style law suit from some obscure 2nd tier footballer who wins a ruling in the high court that FIFA/UEFA's number of games injured him permanently and then it will all change.

Consider though, if a club can't play a player more than 40 times a season, there's going to be all sorts of clamouring as managers will have to become strategic as to what 40 games they can play, leading to claims of "fixing" by playing weaker teams against one relegation threatened side and not another.

What do they do when they have an injury crisis and they have already played X player 40 times - can they not play him or do they need special league dispensation?


Its a messy area to get into, but its going to have to happen.

I agree but would still ponder how they manage this entire area with policy and science at the core. I also agree about the lawsuit.

In a world I'm familiar with, health surveillance applies to workers who are regularly measured to make sure their functions like sight, hearing, lung function etc are returning to normal levels after the work they do. I'm pretty certain an equivalent thing already exists in football. I remember Klopp talking about getting a report on every player, so he knew who to rotate and protect from injury and burnout. I guess what I'm saying is take that concept to the next level and use the medical diagnostics to enforce rest on players. Put policy around it rather than leave it to the discretion of managers.

I remember Hendo returning from Moscow and Klopp using him so sparingly for the first part of the season in 2018. He knew his captain was close to burnout due to the accumulation of so many games. Hendo started to really get involved again closer to Xmas and in May was holding the CL trophy aloft at our expense. That data informed Klopp, but Klopp had choices other managers don't. He could play Fabinho, Milner, Keita etc and not miss his captain too badly. Normally, player burnout is where this luxury doesn't exist and that is where it needs policy in my opinion.

 

[Surfless]

I agree but would still ponder how they manage this entire area with policy and science at the core. I also agree about the lawsuit.

In a world I'm familiar with, health surveillance applies to workers who are regularly measured to make sure their functions like sight, hearing, lung function etc are returning to normal levels after the work they do. I'm pretty certain an equivalent thing already exists in football. I remember Klopp talking about getting a report on every player, so he knew who to rotate and protect from injury and burnout. I guess what I'm saying is take that concept to the next level and use the medical diagnostics to enforce rest on players. Put policy around it rather than leave it to the discretion of managers.

I remember Hendo returning from Moscow and Klopp using him so sparingly for the first part of the season in 2018. He knew his captain was close to burnout due to the accumulation of so many games. Hendo started to really get involved again closer to Xmas and in May was holding the CL trophy aloft at our expense. That data informed Klopp, but Klopp had choices other managers don't. He could play Fabinho, Milner, Keita etc and not miss his captain too badly. Normally, player burnout is where this luxury doesn't exist and that is where it needs policy in my opinion.

I think we might work in similar worlds based on what you are saying. And yes, there will be science capable of being the basis of policy, but there's so many nuanced scenarios that will cause outrage at one club or other, it will cause uproar.

 

[Surfless]

It's unworkable because the key games MIGHT come at the end of the season in the cups, or you might get knocked out, and especially because international managers cannot and will not liaise with clubs on that.
So the only solution is to limit them all to 45 mins or 60 mins per match, so they don't get into the red zone where all the damage is done. The manager can pick which portion of a game they can play, but not the full 98 minutes. There, I said it!

So poch era Tottenham are going out of the champions league to Ajax, and Moura and Ali have hit their time limits and have to come off.. We never recover to beat them....

See?

Even with time limits it's going to cause havoc.

 

[Muttley]

So poch era Tottenham are going out of the champions league to Ajax, and Moura and Ali have hit their time limits and have to come off.. We never recover to beat them....

See?

Even with time limits it's going to cause havoc.

lol - I didn't see any of our players put themselves in the red zone in the second half of that season. They were all coasting in the league and saving themselves for a Weds evening when the CL player bonuses were in play. Eriksen could barely muster a sprint in the league.

 

[metalgear]

I would put a limit something like each player can play a maximum of 50 club + 5 international games a season (extended to 10 in world cup or euros years).

Just basically kill off pre-season tours and international friendlies.

yes agree - especially internationals, i mean they should want to feature younger talents for recruitment