New season, same injury issues?

My view is this:

Players need to play games pre-season to get match-fit, whether that be here or on tours abroad. Players can get injured at any time during a game, so I'm not blaming being on tour for that either.

However, you do need to manage certain players, who are maybe more injury-prone due to travelling / over-stress on the body etc. Giggs use to get loads of niggly injuries until we learnt to manage better, others seemed to rarely suffer from injury no matter what, but you can't completely wrap them in cotton wool.

With regards to touring generally, I think you have to be realistic. Of course player welfare is a concern, but we are a global club with fans all round the world with various sponsorship deals and obligations to fulfil. That is part and parcel of being a global club. Ideally those fans want to see the 'big players', but just to get a chance to see 'their' team once every few years is something for them. It's easy to take it for granted if we have the chance to see on a regular basis - of course the club has a role locally, but we need that global fanbase to compete also - that's why we need to please the money men, nothing to do with injuries.

And the old adage applies - if you're good enough, you're old enough, but with young players, they obviously still need guidance etc - we won't know the best partnership until they actually play regularly and ETH can judge etc

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 hours, 10 minutes ago

Wayne Rooney was starting before then. As was Fabregas and plenty of others too. Yamal was 16 and playing at the Euros.

I genuinely don't think people realise we aren't the financial juggernaut we once were. Do we really have £50m to be spending on a CB who isn't even going to start all the time when fit?

Looks like we have to sell to buy anyone else now too so I think that theory is way off personally. And if I'm wrong then spending £50m on a player who isn't ready to be starting for us yet isn't great business sense when we have a million other issues is it?
Yoro was signed to play in my opinion and now we are going to have to do without him for a while. If De Ligt was top priority and our first choice starting CB target then there's no way we'd have prioritised Yoro over that deal. Surely you get your starting CB in through the door first before a backup?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

INEOS are explicit that they are signing players who are expected to become stars in the future. We're building a team that is realistically going to compete for major titles not this season, probably not the next, maybe in 3-4 years. Within that strategy it's perfectly reasonable to spend a big chunk of our budget on a player we believe will be world class in time but may not be a guaranteed starter in his first season.

Obviously, some players are good enough to play at the highest level at the age of 17 or 18. It's very rare for central defenders to do so because so much of their game is about nous as opposed to talent. Of course it remains to be seen how Yoro will adapt to the PL once he is fit to play. It's possible that he is ready from day 1. But everyone who has watched him closely seems to be saying the same things: that some of his decision making / positioning is a bit naive and betrays lack of experience, and he still has some physical development to undergo. I imagine our club was well aware of this when they decided to buy him.

I certainly don't think anyone is contemplating using him as sparingly as Kambwala last season, but it would be good for his development, his still growing body (1982 made the valid point at how Barca have overplayed their talented youngsters to the detriment of the team) and probably for the team to give him a gradual taste of English football. I for one am absolutely fine with spending what we have on him while managing his minutes.

comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 44 minutes ago
And the old adage applies - if you're good enough, you're old enough, but with young players, they obviously still need guidance etc - we won't know the best partnership until they actually play regularly and ETH can judge etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't find that adage very useful. We've seen lots of young players whose talent was obviously on a very high level but who were ineffective until they gained enough experience or grew into an adult frame. Sometimes you need to be old enough to be good enough.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by kinsang (U3346)
posted 44 minutes ago
And the old adage applies - if you're good enough, you're old enough, but with young players, they obviously still need guidance etc - we won't know the best partnership until they actually play regularly and ETH can judge etc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't find that adage very useful. We've seen lots of young players whose talent was obviously on a very high level but who were ineffective until they gained enough experience or grew into an adult frame. Sometimes you need to be old enough to be good enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
well then simply they weren't good enough at a young age - being good enough is the whole package - mentally and physically. I would say that perhaps defenders would probably struggle more age-wise, than attackers who may have a bit more freedom to express themselves. But the best players will tend to adapt more quickly.

kinsang

I guess the main reason I find it unhelpful is the way it gets trotted out as a blanket justification for fielding young, talented players, which doesn't really account for the complex set of considerations around what they still need to develop in their game, how much the team can deal with those shortcomings in the meantime, what's best for the player, what approach will accelerate their development most, etc.

An adage that boils down to 'if you're good enough, you're good enough' (true, but self-evident) doesn't really give us a useful answer to those questions. But I agree with the sentiment that age shouldn't be a barrier if playing senior football is in the interests of the team and the player.

Seeing that Yoro is out for 3-6 weeks, missing potentially first 3 games of the season (but likely more if he also then needs a pre-season).

Only Twitter stuff nothing official. Guess there will be a press conference ahead of Betis game or after it tomorrow.

Supposedly Yoro is only likely to miss the first 3 games of the season when the international break is. Bummer as he’ll miss preseason but I thought it was going to be a lot longer.

Now saying possible fractured foot and months out. Who knows?

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
kinsang

I guess the main reason I find it unhelpful is the way it gets trotted out as a blanket justification for fielding young, talented players, which doesn't really account for the complex set of considerations around what they still need to develop in their game, how much the team can deal with those shortcomings in the meantime, what's best for the player, what approach will accelerate their development most, etc.

An adage that boils down to 'if you're good enough, you're good enough' (true, but self-evident) doesn't really give us a useful answer to those questions. But I agree with the sentiment that age shouldn't be a barrier if playing senior football is in the interests of the team and the player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that some players are thrown in before they are anywhere near ready and need more nurturing etc, but in my head, they weren't good enough at that age. So a decent manager will recognise when a player is ready or not, and some will deal better than others. But it easy to ruin a career by playing them when they are not ready