When is a player too injury prone for us?

[épieur]

I was just looking at appearances for Daniel Agger and was a bit surprised to find that in the past three seasons, his appearance record for us has been:

 

08/09: 26

 

09/10: 36

 

10/11: 21

 

Which is actually a fair bit more than I thought he had played. In my own mind, he'd come up for maybe a dozen games a season. Which has me thinking that maybe there is a tendency (since there is for me, I naturally assume all the rest of you do the same) to skewer our impressions of how injured players are once they've been marked injury prone.

 

 

Even more surprisingly to me is how many games Aurelio has played. I was sure he was far worse than Agger, but for him those seasons read: 33, 23, 21.

 

For additional comparison, Martin Kelly played 24 games last season and IIRC his injury record in prior seasons is not much better. Glen Johnson has played 35 games a season for the past four seasons.

 

So, rather than going on impressions and just sticking to numbers: When is a player too injury prone for us? Obviously, their actual quality has to be weighed in as well, but in the case of players like Aurelio and Agger (and for that matter GJ and MK), we're talking players who would strengthen the first team when fit, so there is obviously a case for wanting them around in a best case scenario.

 

So what's a reasonable cut off point? At what point is it too few games to be worth persisting with?

 

 

 

[_00_deathscar]

They include substitute appeareances though - coming back from injury, or in the case of Agger and Aurelio, being hauled off after 15, 20, 30, 45 minutes after being injured, again.

 

Also, that is presumably across all competitions, not just the League.

Edited July 12, 2011 by _00_deathscar

[épieur]

Personally, I think if players can get to around the 35 games a season mark, there is no reason to even think about it. That is what squad players like Maxi and N'gog and Joe Cole have played for us this season. Jay Spearing has played 20 games and still made a contribution. Does it make sense to keep such players but simply consider their value for the squad rather than first team over the course of a season instead?

 

They include substitute appeareances though - coming back from injury, or in the case of Agger and Aurelio, being hauled off after 15, 20, 30, 45 minutes after being injured, again.

 

Also, that is presumably across all competitions, not just the League.

 

All competitions, yep (same as for all players I have cited so far).

 

I haven't checked sub appearances but I don't think they are many for either player. But yeah, probably a few of those have involved being hauled off early as well.

[drdooom]

Aurelio had 7 starts in the league last season, in two of those he was hauled off injured after 20 something minutes. The other 7 (league) appearances where 15 minute subs.

[Leo No.8]

21 and 26 games in two of his last three seasons is a really poor record. If he could regularly manage what he did in 2009/10 which was 36 games then with his quality that would be fine, he'd be a good asset.

 

Most players will pick up a fairly lengthy injury somewhere along the line in their career which you can accept, but if a player is regularly managing less than 35 games a season purely because of injury not selection its not acceptable IMO. Looked at Mertesacker's stats the other day, he was a player I thought was injury prone but he's still played 35+ games just about every season. I'd be trying to get him in with him just having a year left on his contract, he's a big unit at 6"6 and decent with the ball at his feet.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Leo No.8

[carrafan]

I think the position the player plays for is also something very important when looking for a cut off for the games in a season that a player should be available to feature in. Anywhere down the spine of the team (GK, CB, CM) and we're looking for all players to be able to do atleast 30 league games every year. The full backs come in next, the forwards after that and finally the wingers.

 

Again, wages come into the picture. Someone on 25k a week, being injured feels a lot better than Joe Cole not being fit for half the season on a 4 year 90k/week deal. Buying players with no injury issues is and should be a very important thing to look at. See how easily Konchesky found a club in Jan and now but shipping out Aurelio is going to be a big headache. Same gor Degen. I'm glad we didnt risk it with Marveaux.. he might be a big star in the league with Newcastle but over the long run, with policies like this we will end up saving a good amount of money.

[Kahnee]

Given our history, being dead seems an injury too far for us

[Leo No.8]

Given our history, being dead seems an injury too far for us

 

And is the only injury Aurelio has thus far avoided, he's injured every muscle, bone, tooth and nail in his body (so don't you do him for first scorer anytime soon).

[Kahnee]

And is the only injury Aurelio has thus far avoided.

 

That's only because every time death pops round his house, Aurelio is in A&E

[Jonesy]

That's only because every time death pops round his house, Aurelio is in A&E

 

I heard he got injured whilst reaching for the salmon mousse.

[kop205]

I was just looking at appearances for Daniel Agger and was a bit surprised to find that in the past three seasons, his appearance record for us has been:

 

08/09: 26

 

09/10: 36

 

10/11: 21

 

Which is actually a fair bit more than I thought he had played. In my own mind, he'd come up for maybe a dozen games a season. Which has me thinking that maybe there is a tendency (since there is for me, I naturally assume all the rest of you do the same) to skewer our impressions of how injured players are once they've been marked injury prone.

 

 

We played 55 games in 08/09; 56 in 09/10; and 54 last season.

 

We need players who are going to be fit for way more than Agger has been. His record is woeful, especially when you add in what others have said about games where he has only lasted 15 minutes.

 

A real shame, but that kind of appearance record is unsustainable.

[David Hodgson]

We played 55 games in 08/09; 56 in 09/10; and 54 last season.

 

We need players who are going to be fit for way more than Agger has been. His record is woeful, especially when you add in what others have said about games where he has only lasted 15 minutes.

 

A real shame, but that kind of appearance record is unsustainable.

 

You want your centre half pairing to be available together for about 85-90% of your league. They're the positions you don't rotate. If Aggers one of your main two then you can bet you'll not have your first choice partnership in tandem for over half the league season.

[Leo No.8]

Thinking on about options at centre half has Martin Kelly been doing some more growing? Looking at the training pics from China he looks f*cking huge, maybe deceiving but he looks taller than Carroll now.

 

If so then with Flanagan looking so promising and Johnson there as well, if we sign a left back it might be the right time both for him developmentally and for the squad balance to move inside to centre half.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Leo No.8

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

Thinking on about options at centre half has Martin Kelly been doing some more growing? Looking at the training pics from China he looks f*cking huge, maybe deceiving but he looks taller than Carroll now.

 

If so then with Flanagan looking so promising and Johnson there as well, if we sign a left back it might be the right time both for him developmentally and for the squad balance to move inside to centre half.

 

the thing is, these options look quite exciting and well-balanced in the summer:

 

LB - Enrique, Robinson

CH - Carragher, Agger, Kelly, Skrtel

RB - Johnson, Flanagan

 

but you pick up a couple of injuries during the season, and suddenly you think "f***, we're relying on children here". the pressure could easily get to Robinson and Flanagan. or, as with Insua, they may just not look that hot once they play loads of games.