[dtp]

h again, on 10 March 2024 - 10:59 PM, said:

In a fairly recent post I said Mike Jones should be the first name on the sheet for the rest of the season, and that's because he's not only guarenteed to improve the defence, he also seems to lift the entire team. However, he isn't 29 any more and a bit of easing him along will pay dividends now and next season as well, I hope.
It isn't being complacent or arrogant to say that against the weakest side in the league we can afford to do that. The job is done by any sensible reckoning, including the bookies, and it would be a tragedy if he got injured through playing too often. Personally I love to see him in the team, but on this particular occasion I'd be much happier seeing a a well rested Mike Jones putting Oldham in their place.
As for playing our "strongest, fittest team" it isn't something we do unless you think the entire squad is equally strong and fit. The only certainty is that Tuesdays team will be different to yesterday's and next Saturday's different again. Rotation is the name of the game, and it works.

I don’t entirely disagree with your argument, h, that’s why I used the term “strongest and fittest”. As such, if players are deemed to need a rest they don’t fall into that category. Conversely, if after a Saturday game players are deemed good to go again then if their performance was at the level required then they should, or could, be given the nod depending on the game plan for the Tuesday game.

I also agree we are nearly there. However, mathematically, we are not there yet. Tomorrow night is another home game and a good opportunity to take us closer to where we want to be. However, not giving Oxford enough respect could be a dangerous game. Hence, I say, we should play our strongest team possible whatever that team is. After tomorrow’s game we only have 3 home games left and 5 away. On paper the home games are easier games than any of those we have away from home. Win 2 and draw 2 of our 4 remaining home games and we are mathematically certain along with setting the record of not being beaten at home all season. Any away points we pick up will be a bonus and not an essential.

Coming back to Mike Jones, I again agree, he can’t play every game, but once we’ve put the league to bed he can rest to the start of next season as far as I’m concerned. However, by the start of next season I do hope we have brought in a younger fitter version and Mike becomes more of a bit part player. He deserves his extended contract and will be an essential part of the squad but we cannot rely on him throughout the season.

[whittman]

Osborne again, on 10 March 2024 - 07:15 PM, said:

Prior to Will Grigg's goal, Banks was taken out by a tackle that I would deem to be a straight red. He was certainly nearly well and truly marked there.

Thats strange

Their one eyed manager must have had something in it when that tackle went unpunished by the referee lol

[calvin plummers socks]

dtp, on 11 March 2024 - 09:13 AM, said:

I don’t entirely disagree with your argument, h, that’s why I used the term “strongest and fittest”. As such, if players are deemed to need a rest they don’t fall into that category. Conversely, if after a Saturday game players are deemed good to go again then if their performance was at the level required then they should, or could, be given the nod depending on the game plan for the Tuesday game.

If a players needs a rest they don’t fall into the strongest and fitted category? How’s that?

[dtp]

calvin plummers socks, on 11 March 2024 - 10:36 AM, said:

If a players needs a rest they don’t fall into the strongest and fitted category? How’s that?

Being in the profession you claim to be in then doesn’t “needing a rest” suggest their bodies are tired and as such are not amongst the “strongest and fittest” at that particular point in time? Once their bodies have physically recovered they might then again fall into the category of the “strongest and fittest” available.

If you think otherwise then perhaps you could give your reasoning?

[calvin plummers socks]

dtp, on 11 March 2024 - 10:43 AM, said:

Being in the profession you claim to be in then doesn’t “needing a rest” suggest their bodies are tired and as such are not amongst the “strongest and fittest” at that particular point in time? Once their bodies have physically recovered they might then again fall into the category of the “strongest and fittest” available.

If you think otherwise then perhaps you could give your reasoning?

Different players and positions have different workloads and ability to adapt to these.
Resting a player is not a weakness or meaning they are weaker etc.
You know most injuries are intrinsic overload caused?

[dtp]

calvin plummers socks, on 11 March 2024 - 10:55 AM, said:

Different players and positions have different workloads and ability to adapt to these.
Resting a player is not a weakness or meaning they are weaker etc.
You know most injuries are intrinsic overload caused?

At what point have I said that if a player needs a rest it makes him weak? When the player is fully rested then he should become part of the “fittest and strongest” available.

If he needs a rest he should be rested because pushing his body too far could make him more susceptible to injury. You actually admit that “most injuries are intrinsic overload caused”!!!

That’s nothing to do with different positions having different workloads.

I seriously cannot work out what your argument is or what you are trying to prove.

[calvin plummers socks]

dtp, on 11 March 2024 - 11:33 AM, said:

At what point have I said that if a player needs a rest it makes him weak? When the player is fully rested then he should become part of the “fittest and strongest” available.

If he needs a rest he should be rested because pushing his body too far could make him more susceptible to injury. You actually admit that “most injuries are intrinsic overload caused”!!!

That’s nothing to do with different positions having different workloads.

I seriously cannot work out what your argument is or what you are trying to prove.

It has everything to do with different positions having different workloads

[born in 1866]

dtp, on 10 March 2024 - 07:00 PM, said:

For me, because of our goal difference, we have guaranteed a top 3 finish. Now, we need just 8 points to guarantee promotion. The sooner we get them the better. So, there should be no talk of resting any player for a game with thoughts of the following game in mind.

As such, we should play our strongest, fittest, team on Tuesday night and if Mike Jones is fit to go then he plays unless the management think we have better in the building to fulfil our game plan. The next game is our most important game right up until we can hear that lady singing. After that, I don’t mind if the management take a look at some of the patient back up players with a view to finalising their retained list and/or as a means of saying thank you.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said our fittest team.
I can recall Sir Jack saying he needed a few days recovery after a game and Evo saying he couldn't walk until Tuesday or Wednesday let alone play.
Now Jones is at the age, or older, than both of those, I wonder if his revovery time will play a factor on his availability for Tuesday?

[dtp]

calvin plummers socks, on 11 March 2024 - 11:49 AM, said:

It has everything to do with different positions having different workloads

And, I wouldn’t play anybody in any position if they were suffering from tired muscles etc if I had an alternative option available.

[boot]

born in 1866, on 11 March 2024 - 11:54 AM, said:

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said our fittest team.
I can recall Sir Jack saying he needed a few days recovery after a game and Evo saying he couldn't walk until Tuesday or Wednesday let alone play.
Now Jones is at the age, or older, than both of those, I wonder if his revovery time will play a factor on his availability for Tuesday?

I remember talking to Jack's dad after a game and he told me that Jack was completely drained the day after a game and did nothing but rest. It did reach the stage where he only played home games if I recollect correctly.

[dim view]

dtp, on 10 March 2024 - 07:54 PM, said:

At the time, I thought the ref did well allowing play on but then could not believe he chose not to punish the player afterwards.

After watching the highlights I still cannot understand why that went unpunished.

Early on, their Forrad flattened Tyrer with a Mick McManus body charge.
Harry displayed the best possible psychological response to the idiot. He jumped up unscathed, amplifying the futility. Great goalkeeping.

[JonB]

dim view, on 11 March 2024 - 12:12 PM, said:

Early on, their Forrad flattened Tyrer with a Mick McManus body charge.
Harry displayed the best possible psychological response to the idiot. He jumped up unscathed, amplifying the futility. Great goalkeeping.

Their forward tried similar with a couple of defenders as if he was trying to leave one on someone early on to impose himself. Failed miserably.

This post has been edited by JonB: 11 March 2024 - 12:21 PM

[danblue]

Osborne again, on 10 March 2024 - 07:15 PM, said:

Prior to Will Grigg's goal, Banks was taken out by a tackle that I would deem to be a straight red. He was certainly nearly well and truly marked there.

Was keeping an eye on that incident and missed the ruddy goal!
Looked back on the highlights and the youth steamed in from around the halfway line and tried to decapitate Banks. How on earth Banks didn't get seriously injured... not sure if he moved slightly to avoid the oncoming crippler whilst manhandling the other player.
In fact, the one who came steaming in trotted off and Oli had old of the other less offender.
Unbelievable the player didn't even get a yellow

[HaslandBlue58]

Just got around to watching highlights,to add to my comments on the refs. performance,even with the unwritten rule of not showing anything on the highlights to bring doubt onto the officials quality,there was still enough inclusions to show he is not ready for moving up the leagues.But it will not prevent him on our previous experiences.

[dim view]

dtp, on 11 March 2024 - 09:13 AM, said:

I don’t entirely disagree with your argument, h, that’s why I used the term “strongest and fittest”. As such, if players are deemed to need a rest they don’t fall into that category. Conversely, if after a Saturday game players are deemed good to go again then if their performance was at the level required then they should, or could, be given the nod depending on the game plan for the Tuesday game.

I also agree we are nearly there. However, mathematically, we are not there yet. Tomorrow night is another home game and a good opportunity to take us closer to where we want to be. However, not giving Oxford enough respect could be a dangerous game. Hence, I say, we should play our strongest team possible whatever that team is. After tomorrow’s game we only have 3 home games left and 5 away. On paper the home games are easier games than any of those we have away from home. Win 2 and draw 2 of our 4 remaining home games and we are mathematically certain along with setting the record of not being beaten at home all season. Any away points we pick up will be a bonus and not an essential.

Coming back to Mike Jones, I again agree, he can’t play every game, but once we’ve put the league to bed he can rest to the start of next season as far as I’m concerned. However, by the start of next season I do hope we have brought in a younger fitter version and Mike becomes more of a bit part player. He deserves his extended contract and will be an essential part of the squad but we cannot rely on him throughout the season.

Interesting. I don’t suppose we’ll ever know if Cook now changes his line up for tomorrow in the knowledge that Oldham now have a week to prepare for our visit.