In the meantime you've got Slur rushing players back. Is it really mind games when the club say a player is out for 4 weeks and their back the next Sunday? Maybe if he let the players rest similar to the way we operated with Lescott and co. He wouldn't have Vidic out for 10 months.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City Recorded The Least Injuries Last Season
- Thread starter jrb
- Start date
Rammyblues
Well-Known Member
Maybe this exonerates Mancinis rotation policy, endorses our medical staff and sport science experts. If we are resting players or spotting players with minor injuries and making sure that they are 100% fit before playing thereby avoiding serious injury they should be applauded. If that team is responsible for the lack of injuries and advising Mancini properly over the course of a season and thereby avoiding players who have been injured to be rushed back then hopefully this record will carry on into next season and beyond.
Wasn't there an article saying we used significantly less players than the rags this season? If so then it stands to reason that you'd get less injuries and less overall time without players regardless of rotation, style of play etc.
Another example of why Roberto has managed to turn the club upside down.
Its not coincidence that certain clubs have consistantly injured players- look at Newcastle before the present regime. Our in depth buying and rotation means that most of our first team get 30 league games a year.
Noticeable how few muscle injuries we have had-due to excellent warm up and player discipline.
Its not coincidence that certain clubs have consistantly injured players- look at Newcastle before the present regime. Our in depth buying and rotation means that most of our first team get 30 league games a year.
Noticeable how few muscle injuries we have had-due to excellent warm up and player discipline.
This is 100% spot on fella.JGL07 said:moon said:Heard this as another excuse for the rags losing it
More like the impact of an ageing squad and inadequate rotation policy.
The lack of finance at the swamp and red nose's gradual demise into senility shows in many different ways, and this is just one example.
We on the other hand have a strategy and the infrastructure to ensure we are always at he right end of this particular league.
Yet another example of how City and Mancini are 'top of league'
Managing the squad is just one aspect of a championship winning team. Having said that themlot losing Vidic and Fletcher would have had a massive impact on their side. When we lost Vinny and Yaya for a month in January it cost us 2 competitions.
sergiokun
Well-Known Member
moon said:Heard this as another excuse for the rags losing it
Lol i heard THE GAY seen a rat on the pitch and Shit himself then everton scored a 4th
I think Mancini and his staff deserve a lot of credit - its no accident that the number of injuries have gone down.
Before the takeover we had to take a few risks on injury-prone players, as the funds available dictated that. People like Mpenza were all we could afford. After the takeover this should no longer have been an issue. Yet Hughes still signed players like Bellamy and Santa Cruz with long histories of injury problems, and for the type of fee where you'd expect a player in peak condition.
When Mancini took over things changed. When Bellamy was shipped out on loan it was a controversial decision. Remember this outburst by Hughes man Raymond Verheijen? Mancini's methods were supposedly too hard on the players, and the cause of injuries. I wonder what he'd have to say about that now? Mancini took the view that if a player isn't good for two games in a week on a regular basis, he shouldn't be in the team. Maybe his methods did result in some injuries in the short term, but the important part was long term fitness. You can bet he learned a lot about who to ship out from that. No doubt a large part of Jerome Boateng's exit was drinks trolley-gate and the questions that raised, with him perpetually seeming a week from fitness for a good couple of months.
At the same time, the squad has been built with resilience in mind. Its a young squad, Gareth Barry is the oldest player at 31. No nursing veterans through from game to game. You will never get rid of injuries completely, but you can certainly improve your odds. Why else does Mancini like to rotate full-backs? In our favoured formation they do more running at full speed than anyone else in the team, and so are more at risk of injury over the course of the season. Owen Hargreaves is a bit of an outlier in this approach, but then again he was a pay-as-you-play free transfer, with zero risk attached. What you won't see is a fee paid for player with a history of injuries. For every Demba Ba that comes good, there's a Roque Santa Cruz, and we can afford not to take that chance.
Before the takeover we had to take a few risks on injury-prone players, as the funds available dictated that. People like Mpenza were all we could afford. After the takeover this should no longer have been an issue. Yet Hughes still signed players like Bellamy and Santa Cruz with long histories of injury problems, and for the type of fee where you'd expect a player in peak condition.
When Mancini took over things changed. When Bellamy was shipped out on loan it was a controversial decision. Remember this outburst by Hughes man Raymond Verheijen? Mancini's methods were supposedly too hard on the players, and the cause of injuries. I wonder what he'd have to say about that now? Mancini took the view that if a player isn't good for two games in a week on a regular basis, he shouldn't be in the team. Maybe his methods did result in some injuries in the short term, but the important part was long term fitness. You can bet he learned a lot about who to ship out from that. No doubt a large part of Jerome Boateng's exit was drinks trolley-gate and the questions that raised, with him perpetually seeming a week from fitness for a good couple of months.
At the same time, the squad has been built with resilience in mind. Its a young squad, Gareth Barry is the oldest player at 31. No nursing veterans through from game to game. You will never get rid of injuries completely, but you can certainly improve your odds. Why else does Mancini like to rotate full-backs? In our favoured formation they do more running at full speed than anyone else in the team, and so are more at risk of injury over the course of the season. Owen Hargreaves is a bit of an outlier in this approach, but then again he was a pay-as-you-play free transfer, with zero risk attached. What you won't see is a fee paid for player with a history of injuries. For every Demba Ba that comes good, there's a Roque Santa Cruz, and we can afford not to take that chance.
JM Mcr
Well-Known Member
Vidic returned from 2 months out with a calf injury in early October (hardly rushed back). The injury which ruled him out for the majority of the season happened 2 months later and was the result of bad luck. A Basle player landed awkwardly on Vidic's outstretched leg after they'd challenged for a header, rupturing his knee ligaments..alky313 said:In the meantime you've got Slur rushing players back. Is it really mind games when the club say a player is out for 4 weeks and their back the next Sunday? Maybe if he let the players rest similar to the way we operated with Lescott and co. He wouldn't have Vidic out for 10 months.
Think you chose a poor example to illustrate what may be a valid point...
Deepest Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2010
- Messages
- 9,756
Why's a sensible fellow like you a Red?JM Mcr said:Vidic returned from 2 months out with a calf injury in early October (hardly rushed back). The injury which ruled him out for the majority of the season happened 2 months later and was the result of bad luck. A Basle player landed awkwardly on Vidic's outstretched leg after they'd challenged for a header, rupturing his knee ligaments..alky313 said:In the meantime you've got Slur rushing players back. Is it really mind games when the club say a player is out for 4 weeks and their back the next Sunday? Maybe if he let the players rest similar to the way we operated with Lescott and co. He wouldn't have Vidic out for 10 months.
Think you chose a poor example to illustrate what may be a valid point...
Never too late to see the light (blue) :)